I tried to watch the Dr. Helen & Instapundit interview with Mike Huckabee. (Interview starts about 7 minutes into video.) I really tried to watch the whole interview. I happen to like Glenn Reynolds. But I only lasted through Huckabee's response to the first question. And then I turned it off, just like I did when he entered the primary.

I tried to hear him out, but he makes fictitious constructs and I only get angrier when people keep listening to him without thinking. (Note: I am not a libertarian like Glenn and his wife Helen. I am the feared and/or maligned Capital C Conservative, whom Huck keeps claiming to also be. Blech. My arse.)

After introducing Huckabee and showing his new book, Helen asks the first question. "You attack libertarians as worse than liberals. Are we that bad?"

After demurring that he surely doesn't mean either of the hosts, naturally, Huck's partial response should be an eye opener, not an applause gatherer.

"There's this sort of growing, I guess branch or whatever, within the Republican party who don't want to hear anything about some of the, say, traditional values issues. They say we shouldn't be talking about those, we only want to talk about cutting taxes and reducing government.

But the truth is we can't reduce government and cut taxes without also understanding that a lot of the cost of government is directly related to the breakdown of family and individual responsibility.

So if we, um, you know, just say we are going to arbitrarily cut things, how many police do we take off the streets, how many people do we let out of prison beds?"

Click. I closed the window and shut him off (and sadly Glenn & Helen as well).

Who - Libertarian, Conservative or otherwise - has ever advocated "arbitrarily" cutting things? Do you know any? What kind of a jackass construct is this? Pardon my frank language, but this is the sort of thing that just pisses me off to no end.

I have heard Barney Frank talk about arbitrarily cutting defense by 25%. But I've never heard any Libertarian or Libertarian think tank talk of arbitrarily cutting the whole of government. They've been quite specific, actually, Mr. Huckabee. So have Conservatives.

And what is with the the "how many police do we take off the streets, how many people do we let out of prison beds" gloom scenario laid out beneath the construct of the fictitious argument of "arbitrarily" cutting government? No, those are the kinds of things government is supposed to be doing. Those aren't the bloated parts of government that hang over the budgetary belt. And he surely knows it.

Let's turn Huck's words around in a more logical order. Has this supposed fiscal conservative ever stopped to consider that "the breakdown of family and individual responsibility" is "directly related to" many of the bloated programs that make up "a lot of the cost of government"? Has he looked at the inner cities - or depressed rural areas for that matter - and wondered just how much government subsidizing of single parenthood has contributed to the breakdown of families? It's not the only cause, to be sure. But it is more of a contributor than a cure.

The cause is societal in nature. And the fact of the matter is that government has contributed to this rather than solve it. Yet he wants more of this or sustained, and justifies it by holding up what the government he wants more of has, in part, created? Unbelievable.

Maybe Glenn and Helen took this on. I don't know. I couldn't continue, through no fault of their own. Just couldn't take any more of the Huck. One question and one response based on false constructs, and I was done.

His campaign, while based largely on false premises and a refusal to reduce government, was successful because he designed it around short, simple messages that resonated for their simplicity and their cloaking in family values. Too bad they (and he) were so damned wrong.

But who am I kidding? I should just hop on board the Easy Train. Mike Huckabee has a much-hyped book and a prime time show on FOX News. Baffles me on a good day, enrages me on others. Because it's conservatives buying his book and watching his show, both based on a distortion of conservatism.

This is what happens when the Republican Party fails to elevate a principled core conservative in the primary process. This is what happens when a principled core conservative fails to elevate the Republican Party in the primary process. Take your pick. Either way, Huckabee and McCain - and a President-Elect Obama - are the result.

Prediction: The next President of the United States will not be a professional career politician. I think we're just about sick of them on both sides of the aisle and, as a country, are quite prepared to leap in support of someone (and something) much different. We'll likely elevate and choose someone who has run something instead of run for something. We'll likely elevate and choose someone who has not been in DC (or a state capital) for so long that government is seen as the solution to every ill. Here's hoping he or she is a conservative with communication skills.

That is surely the most disjointed, purposeless posts I've ever seen on wizbang. Your diatribe is all over the place with no actual point other than you dislike Huckabee.

For your enlightenment, Mike Huckabee is nothing like John McCain. He has shown to be a responsible fiscal conservative who cut taxes and balanced his state budget. His ardent support for the FairTax further demonstrates his commitment to curtailing bureaucracy. He is clearly a strong social conservative deeply rooted in Christian principles. The only issue upon which he has shown interest in compromise is immigration... and his position on that is not unreasonable.

I understand a few Republicans still hold a grudge against Huckabee because he took down Mitt Romney. But Mitt (and Fred) also destroyed Huckabee's campaign in South Carolina. I'm convinced that both Huckabee and Romney would have defeated Obama... and that's what makes this split among conservatives so painful. So, maybe you can knock off ridiculous posts such as this one which accomplish absolutely nothing. You may very well be praying for a Huckabee victory four years from now.

I was on the Huckabee band wagon for a very short time. Then I realized he was an opportunist more then a concerned citizen. That means something to me. I did not favor McCain, but I did not doubt he served country first.

I agree with Steve, I find it hard to listen to him anymore. He is a celebrity now. ww

Put the Kool-Aid down. The point is, I apparently must say again, that his entire argument is based - AGAIN - on a false premise.

And people like you, Orfi, lap it up because he makes his points convincingly. until you read or listen to his words. "Arbitrarily" cut government?

Huckabee is a self-serving media hound who ran for President and, lacking a true core conservative in the race, managed to swipe a not insignificant portion of the Christian conservative base. He is great at messaging, an excellent communicator, and continues to leverage this to further many stances based on false constructs.

You folks are beginning to sound like us dems when we were in the wilderness, eating your young so to speak. It's kinda fun but then politics is cyclical if nothing else so I'm sure I'll be back in the wilderness some day. Meantime the evil side of me is having a ball. :-)

His conservativism is the weird cultish social variety that does not resonate with a majority of people in your country anymore. Perhaps a useful set of beliefs for a VP candidate, in order to shore up the base, but unhelpful in terms of reaching the moderates who voted for Obama.

The sort of "conservative" that would stand a chance in a federal election, in my opinion, would be a socially moderate small-government technocrat with a wonky grasp of policy who prefers to engage liberals/Democrats on the issues rather than resorting to the Gingrichian/Rovian rhetorical strategy of painting one's opponents as weirdos or un-American or otherwise unsavoury. I think Romney would have been best at that, though I don't think a Mormon could (or necessarily should) become President. A candidate like that might fail to fire up the anti-intellectual base, but they'd do far better with the 45% of the population that refuses to identify itself as either liberal or conservative--and they would stand a chance with Reagan Democracts. Huckabee does not, nor does Sarah Palin. They would also win back the Buckleys, Hitchens, Wills, and Frums of the Party--people who are far more important to conservativism (broadly defined) than the Malkins and Dobsons.

Libertarians were headed up by Ron Paul, the Crazy Uncle who attracks mob-rule Banana-Republic thuggery while believing 'free-market principles' constitutes dealing dirty with genocidal dictators because the profit margin is greater.

Until Libertarians clean up their ugly anarchist act they're no better than the Kos Kidz.

While Huckabee may be pro-life he is not a Conservative just like Jimmy Carter may be a Christian he is not pro-life.

In any case, the RELIGIOUS argument is over-done since as indicated in the last election American voters were far more enamored with the government's GOLDEN ENTITLEMENT COINS than they are devoted to their faith.

My problem with Collectivist former Gov Huckabee is the same problem I have with Global Warming Collectivism; while he is fat he wants the government to control what people eat.

Much like Global Warming Collectivist such as Gov Schwarzennegger who fly to and fro in private jets while using the government to force people to take the public bus.

Hyper, have you even paid attention to this site the past year? If you haven't noticed, McCain is everything you said republicans should be yet he lost. So, you are wrong. People respect leaders with a solid core that does not change in the wind or by poles. That is something I do not think you leftists can grasp. ww

No, Willie, McCain isn't a wonky technocrat. He's disingenuous, a political chameleon, and his foreign policy positions are currently unpalatable due to Iraq war fatigue. His base--the media--turned on him when they grew tired of his dishonest pandering. He also has temper control issues and looks really creepy when he smiles.

He would have fared even worse had he veered right away from the centre--as he pretended to do by selecting Sarah Palin.

There are lots of reasons why McCain failed, but if you think that, in 2008, he would have done better had he taken a more conservative stance on social issues, then you're a fool who should take a look at exit polling data.

The sort of "conservative" that would stand a chance in a federal election, in my opinion, would be a socially moderate small-government technocrat with a wonky grasp of policy who prefers to engage liberals/Democrats on the issues

This is a joke, right? It's difficult to engage liberals on issues since they do their best to hide what they really believe. Back last decade when Hillary! proposed to have the government take over American health care, she never "engaged" her critics on the issues, she just accused them of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry.

So no debate on the issues there.

And contrary to your mythology, the smearing of political opponents didn't start with Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich, the Clintons had it down to a science; they had the well thoroughly poisoned before those guys ever got there.

And in this election, Obama didn't run on "issues", he ran on his life story.

By the way, the type of Republican you're describing most closely matches a typical east coast RINO - a good example of this is former governor Christine Todd Whitman who succeeded only in turning New Jersey from a purple-ish state into a solidly blue state.

So your advice is crap. I know you'd prefer the social cons to just go away, but that's not going to happen. Sorry.

[McCain's] base--the media--turned on him when they grew tired of his dishonest pandering.

No, they didn't. The media has no problem with dishonest pandering. There was enough of that on the Democratic side to last a lifetime. No, the actual reason McCain was beloved by the media was because he could always be counted on to bash other Republicans. He was the NYT's poster boy Republican. So, when the election came down to McCain vs. a Democrat, with no more Republicans for McCain to bash, guess whose side the media then took?

I'm sure McCain was thoroughly caught off guard when the media turned on him.

Actually, OregonMuse, most Americans want universal health care, so that would be a good starting point for debating the liberal incumbent in 2012--as opposed to screaming "Socialism!!!!" like a cartoon baby from the 1950s.

Why would anybody debate people who accuse them of being anti-American, pro-terror, "pro-abortion" (my personal favourite!), or "socialist"? None of those labels contain any information so there is no place for the conversation to go. Find a candidate who rises above that bilious mud-slinging and, who knows, maybe the GOP will be relevant in 2012.

Social conservativism is not a winner, though--not conceptually, and not electorally. Again: read the exit polling data. Nobody cared about what Sarah Palin wanted them to care about.

Find a candidate who rises above that bilious mud-slinging and, who knows, maybe the GOP will be relevant in 2012.

Yeah, it's difficult for Republicans to rise about the bilious mud-slinging that they get from both the Democrats and the in-the-tank-for-Obama media.

Social conservativism is not a winner, though--not conceptually, and not electorally. Again: read the exit polling data. Nobody cared about what Sarah Palin wanted them to care about.

Of course, the problem is that soc-con issues were not part of the national conversation during the election. I only heard gay marriage mentioned one during the debates, and both candidates opposed it. I didn't hear any talk of banning abortion (or keeping it legal), or anything about stem cell research.

So I don't know what kind of secret mind rays you seem to think Sarah Palin was sending out, I didn't hear them. but it looks like you imagined you did.

Locally, thought, it may have been different in some areas. But I noticed, as apparently you didn't, that soc-con ballot measures in California and Florida passed. But I'm supposed to conclude from this that soc-con issues are losers. Yeah, right.

And as for exit polling data, here's some exit polling data for you: You know all those Africans and Hispanics who turned out in such large numbers to vote for Obama in California? Well, the overwhelming majority of those voters also voted in favor of Prop. 8, which will outlaw gay marriage. If the GOP could ever figure out how to exploit that soc-con sentiment, the Democrats would be in real trouble in California, and perhaps nation-wide as well.

I'm a small government conservative with a libertarian bent, and I advocate cutting just about every damn thing the government does.

These "libertarians" who don't want to cut anything but earmarks are frauds. If you don't want to take a chain-saw to the state you have no business calling yourself libertarian. Or even conservative, imo.

Libertarians were headed up by Ron Paul, the Crazy Uncle who attracks mob-rule Banana-Republic thuggery while believing 'free-market principles' constitutes dealing dirty with genocidal dictators because the profit margin is greater.

Libertarians were headed up by Bob Barr. I'd like to think that attacking "mob-rule Banana-Republic thuggery" is a good thing. And a lot of what passes for libertarianism these days is properly described as "dealing dirty with genocidal dictators because the profit margin is greater".

Huckabee's comment and whine about Gov Palin was more insightful about him then Palin.

He complained that Palin didn't have to undergo the difficulty of 15 months campaigning that he did.

Of course, this is ridiculous on its face. Huckabee needlessly prolonged his campaign when the nomination was beyond his grasp.

Moreover, he surely got more favorable media attention that Gov. Palin. For example, I don't recall Huckabee having a newborn and The Atlantic's Sullivan proliferating a rumor that the infant was not his.

They would also win back the Buckleys, Hitchens, Wills, and Frums of the Party--

Hitchens? Are you high?? Christopher Hitchens is a close to being a freakin' Marxist, fer cryin' out loud. The only thing he agrees with Republicans on is the war on Islamic terrorism. If you think that makes him a "conservative", you must live in a very strange world.

people who are far more important to conservativism (broadly defined) than the Malkins and Dobsons.

Well, by "important", I suppose you mean "agreeable to hyperbolist", but I don't think very many actual conservatives care a whole lot about who a Canadian liberal thinks they should associate with.

Huckabee's argument is that societies without moral fabric fall apart. History proves him right. Do your homework, wash your mouth out with soap, and try again. Also, it's lame to comment on your own post.

Mike Huckabee is the only politician making any sense these days. As a true conservative he is one of the very few speaking out against the bailout.

For those of you who think Huckabee cost Romney the nomination - this is completely false. Romney cost Romney the nomination. Anyone who spent that much money and didn't do as well as someone he spent 20x more than has proven himself to be unelectable.

Most people who voted for Huckabee would never vote for Mitt Romney. And this is NOT because he is Mormon but because he is dishonest, phony and a Republican in Name Only.

It is most enlightening to see that the critiques of Mike Huckabee are generally replete of any specificity. Romney's relentless attack on Huckabee's conservative credentials certainly inflicted damage fatal to his campaign, but the bottom line is that he was the most conservative candidate in the 2008 field. There is a reason he dominated amongst the most conservative Republican voters.

Yes, the GOP should run on an anti-gay marriage platform, Oregon. That's a winner.

The reaction to Prop 8 was predictable. It will take baby steps to legalize gay marriage through referendum, unfortunately, though the courts could conceivably enforce such legislation despite public opposition, as they did when they struck down anti-miscegenation laws.

Palin was picked because of her supposed (but false) opposition to earmarks and also because she is a conservative Christian with conservative Christian values. By picking her McCain was throwing a bone to people who shared these values.

I know you dislike a Canadian liberal concern-trolling your party's future prospects, but I really do believe that the post-election data suggests that social conservativism was far less politically relevant for centrist voters than the GOP would have hoped. They lost the educated young male demographic--do you really think greater emphasis on social issues (as opposed to the economy and foreign policy) could have helped staunch the bleeding?

I suspect I'm probably just whistling in the wind here, since I'm reading a lot of criticism in these posts that appear to be based more on emotion than substance, but it sure sounds to me like what Huckabee was referring to in that interview was the unbelievable bashing that he has endured for being an alleged fiscal liberal because he had to raise taxes as Governor of Arkansas in order to repair their seriously falling apart infrastructure and was court ordered to do so for their school system.

There are times when the government should be spending money and it is necessary to raise taxes - like for police & fire protection & building jails as well as maintaining roads & educating our citizens.

It makes no sense to accuse someone of fiscal liberalism without taking into account WHAT they were spending taxpayer money on & the circumstances that may have necessitated it - like coming into office after multiple corrupt Democrats who were robbing Peter (not spending for necessities) to pay Paul (to pay for entitlements).

I closely watched the election for two years. I read countless articles in print & on line; perused editorials of all kinds of viewpoints; kept track of what the media was saying (but didn't buy it), and watched all the debates.

By far, I was most impressed by Huckabee. I read one of his books and was even more convinced that we missed the boat on this guy. Huckabee IS a conservative, both fiscally and socially. He "gets it" about the threat from the radicalized fringe of Islam. He has a great record of 10+ yrs as governor, and he cut taxes in spite of working with a 70% Democrat legislature.

Huckabee comes up with fresh & thoughtful ideas to solve problems, not just boiler-plate party speak. For example, in spring 2008 Huckabee suggested that instead of a stimulus refund check, that America should invest in infrastructure repairs. This would generate jobs, demand for American materials like steel, and everyone would benefit from the improvements. Some people ridiculed him for this. But guess what? Now Congress and Barack Obama are proposing the same strategy!

The type of Republican you describe does not share America's values. Whether you like her or not, the reason Sarah Palin drew huge crowds is because she DOES share the values of most Americans -- fiscal conservative, pro-LIFE, with traditional views on marriage, taking a strong stance against radical Islam, etc.

What bothers me is that one-term wonder Romney wasted his $35,000,000 in a failed attempt to wrest the nomination from the only candidate who could have stood a chance against Barack Obama. ROMNEY is the man who is nothing more than an arrogant opportunist seething with raw personal ambition and hubris, changing his position on issues depending on which office he's running for.

I think the reason that you cant watch Mike is because you have anger issues, and Mike being such a glowing and radiant person that he is just burns the very core of you. Because I am also a conservative and I thought Mike was the only true conservative in the primary. You may want to find a preist you may have some demons that have crawled into your skin. There has to be some reason that you have such an unrational fear of Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee 2012!!!

It is clear from this post that you have not read Huckabee's book and are just ranting all over the place with no real direction (or reason) for you dislike of Mike. If you actually took the TIME to read the book you would see that Mike Huckabee clearly has the right ideas and vision for where the Republican party needs to go if we are to succeed. He is refreshingly honest, and he tells it like it is to your face, (you won't catch him making bitter American statements in some backroom). I couldn't figure out just WHY you dislike Huckabee from this post but it is obvious you are CLEARLY quite in the minority. In my opinion, it is nearly impossible not to love the guy. Huckabee 2012!!! It's his year....

I am reading these comments and trying to have and open mind (I am one of those die-hard Huckabee supporters). I certainly don't believe he, or ANYONE is perfect so I am open to constructive criticism as to how Huckabee can improve as a politician. All I see here is people blaming him for accepting a position for a tv show. Since the media was totally biased against Huck because of his lack of money, why would you blame him for accepting a position that will enable him to get his message out there? Why is it wrong for him to make a living? Why is it ok for Obama and Palin to be "celebrities" and wrong for Huckabee? Maybe YOU should read these comments and try to keep an open mind. You may find out you have some prejudices that are clouding your judgement.

You know, Huckabee was a very successful governor for many years in AR. He had more new ideas than any of the other Republican candidates. He was the only candidate in touch w/ the majority of Americans. The Iowans got it right!

To those nay-sayers out there, why not read Huckabee's new book? Find out what his ideas are and what his record in Arkansas really was. Why not open your mind and stop drinking the kool-aid from the cauldron of his rivals? Will you agree with everything he says? Of course not. But you just might find that he is not as bad as some would have you believe. His positions have been distorted and spun into total fabrications at this point. I am not asking you to fall in love with Huckabee or even support him but I am asking that you do yourself and others a favor and get the facts and stop smearing a good and decent man.

Was this article written by some bitter supporter of a candidate that didn't win the nomination because Huckabee earned the votes of so many? My guess would be either Thompson or Romney since both of them ran their campaigns by beating up on the competition. Isn't their some kind of cliche about what happens when someone slings dirt?

It seems like the writer had his mind made up before the interview began. How quick people are to make a judgment without listening. Steve, it seems pretty apparent that you have never taken a look at what Governor Huckabee did in his state of Arkansas. I am a proud Christian Conservative woman and I do purchase Huckabee's books...By the way we do have many "grassroots" folks that are already working on our next campaign...

hyperbolist: 'The sort of "conservative" that would stand a chance in a federal election, in my opinion, would be a socially moderate small-government technocrat with a wonky grasp of policy who prefers to engage liberals/Democrats on the issues rather than resorting to the Gingrichian/Rovian rhetorical strategy of painting one's opponents as weirdos or un-American or otherwise unsavoury.'

But, Huckabee didn't practice "Rovian" politics. And, its not simply SoCons who would dispute you about if he could win. Even Newsweek recognized back in 2007:

...many evangelicals have been telling the former Arkansas governor--and onetime Baptist minister--that they like him but won't back him because he can't beat Hillary Clinton. They have it exactly backward. He may be the only Republican candidate with a decent chance to beat the Democrats next November.

Huckabee? Yes, Huckabee.

To explain why, let's look at the shortcomings of the other Republican candidates first...

...Huckabee comes across more hopeful than Giuliani, more believable than Romney, more intelligent than Thompson and fresher than McCain. He would hold the base and capture moderates drawn to his down-home style. His greatest asset is that he alone among the Republicans "speaks American."

He connects to his audience with stories and metaphors and a geniality that can't be faked. "I'm conservative but I'm not angry about it," he likes to say, and it's true; his gentle mocking of the intraparty warfare that broke out during the Fox debate--likening it to a "demolition derby"--confirms the point. This was Reagan's secret, and it worked for Huckabee in Arkansas, where he won the votes of independents and Democrats...

And, the dailybulletin.com:

-- "Unlike most other Republicans past and present, this folksy, up-by-the-bootstraps former governor of a heavily Democratic state has a message capable of reaching far beyond the GOP faithful. It's one with a natural resonance for the middle class, for Latinos, for African-Americans, for believers of all kinds - indeed for anyone."